-1 vote

Forced Website Redirects for Unauthorized Content

Just a moment ago I visited a website voluntarily, and then after a moment reading the page, without clicking on anything, I experienced a forced redirect to a completely different website that claimed to own content I was viewing on the first site I had gone to.

I hope this isn't a preview of more to come. This might be intended to 'protect' content, but I see how this could be abused and used to control information. Who decides what is appropriate use? Should the browser really be forced to visit a different page than desired?

Here's an image of the notice: http://i53.tinypic.com/2qbhbic.png

From the notice:

The previous page was publishing our content in a way they should not have.

We detected that our content was being displayed to you without our knowledge or permission. In the process, you were taken to one of our pages without your permission.

Not good.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So they could have planned this?

So what likely happened is they let people embed at one point, which resulted in their videos getting spread around and embeded, and then at another point they changed the source code so that it would redirect to their site instead of showing the embedded video?

Or I guess they could have a list of undesired websites in their source code, and only those would redirect right?

Joη's picture

I don't know

I don't know mevio's history or intentions.

YouTube allows videographers to disable video embeds of their own content. They also allow the general populace to embed all the videos where that isn't disabled.

It might be paid-for content that wasn't supposed to be publicly distributed, but someone did, so they protect themselves. I don't know, I just doubt it's malicious.

I mean, the sign looked pretty intentional, so they must have "planned this", but they were probably in the right to do so.

The extent to which they are not right in doing so is why everyone else never hears of sites like mevio.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

It does seem shady.

Forcing people to their site rather than just disabling the embed. After all, the people browsing had nothing to do with the embedding themselves.

That's a bad way to drive people to their site. Anyone sent there without even so much as clicking on anything is probably not going to look at them favorably.

They do that (optionally) by

They do that (optionally) by checking the referer code of the http requests. It's pretty easy to do, and it only severely limits your traffic.

By just opening a new browser and pasting link in address bar, you will bypass that effect.

The problem is that some people will have a free/cheap web page and then host the images on that page from another larger site, instead of copying the images (illegally probably) and paying for the bandwidth themselves.

This cause it to cost the proper site money, with no profit from ad revenue.

What you are seeing is a web hoster getting mad at people ripping him off, and he's taking action against it. No Gov't control, just someone tired of hosting images for someone else for free.


See my explanation above.

This is something different.